Posts Tagged ‘reconciliation’

When Reconciliation Doesn’t Mean Getting Along

March 5, 2010
The Tel-O-Prompter of the United States

Reconciliation is still the buzzword on Capitol Hill as Democrat “leaders” Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi try to figure out how to ram ObamaCare down our throats. Not that they see it that way; as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer put it, “That’s not ramming something through with a majority. It is doing what democracy calls for.” Well, this isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic: and the Founders set it up that way for a reason.

Accompanied by his teleprompter, Barack Obama began a renewed push for a vote on the health care bill by Easter when he met a group of people wearing lab coats in the Rose Garden on Wednesday (and he accused Rep. Eric Cantor of using a “prop” by bringing the 2,400-page bill itself to last week’s health care summit). Obama claimed that “new and improved” legislation “incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans.” As we said Tuesday, however, the problem isn’t whether the bill is “bipartisan.” A few Republican ideas sprinkled in won’t fix it. The problem, at its core, is that a plan for Congress to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy is unconstitutional.

In the face of all evidence, the teleprompter continued, “I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America.” Huh? Giving government bureaucrats control over health care in America is precisely what Obama is proposing to do.

For all the talk about reconciliation in the Senate, the House vote may be the more important one. The Associated Press reports, “The House passed health overhaul legislation by a narrow 220-215 vote in November, but since then several Democrats have defected or left the House. To avoid a filibuster in the Senate that Democrats can’t defeat, Obama is now pushing the House to approve the Senate’s version of the bill, along with a package of changes to fix elements of the Senate bill that House Democrats don’t like, including a special Medicaid deal for Nebraska and a tax on high-value insurance plans that is opposed by organized labor.”

If Pelosi is able to strong-arm the Senate bill through the House with a bare majority, Senate reconciliation becomes moot. With three vacancies, Democrats need just 217 votes for passage, and there are a handful of Democrats who voted “no” in November who now say they’re undecided. On the other hand, 12 pro-life Democrats, led by Bart Stupak of Michigan, say they’re prepared to switch sides and scuttle ObamaCare if sufficient protections against abortion funding aren’t put in place. The Senate bill doesn’t meet their benchmark.

Never underestimate this president’s lack of shame, though — or his penchant for Chicago-style politics. For example, Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) voted against ObamaCare in November, but he is now “undecided.” So on Wednesday, Obama nominated Jim’s brother Scott to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Offering jobs for playing the White House way is nothing new, and Scott Matheson is, to be fair, a well-credentialed nominee. However, even the appearance of selling judgeships for health care votes would give pause to a more honorable president.

As for leftist sentiment, perhaps MSNBC host Ed Schultz best summed it up this week, saying, “[S]mall government has never gotten anybody any health care.”

“The Republicans have a choice,” Schultz declared. “Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. … We have people in need and they need to be helped.”

Memo to Ed: If government would get out of the way, those people might be able to help themselves, as our Founders intended. Democrats aren’t about to let that happen because it really isn’t about helping those in need.

SOURCE

Swamp tactics, reconciliation not Turkey hunting!

February 18, 2010

Well, the thugs in Congress are back at it again, trying to pretend that they are doing what the American people want, while still treating us like red headed step children that are just to stupid to know what is good for us…

“Those unversed in the arcana of Congressional procedure should familiarize themselves with ‘reconciliation.’ It’s just another word for nothing left to lose — that is, it’s the tactic Democrats seem increasingly likely to use to bypass the ordinary legislative rules and railroad ObamaCare into law with a bare partisan majority of 50 Senators, plus Vice President Joe Biden. Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced … that Democrats ‘have set the stage’ for reconciliation. ‘It’s up to us to make sure the public knows that this is not extraordinary,’ she said. ‘It would be a reflection on us if we could not convince people that this is not an unusual place to go.’ Yet the reconciliation gambit really would be unprecedented for social legislation of this cost and scale. And as a matter of procedure, it would also be unusual, to say the least. As Mrs. Pelosi’s senior health adviser, Wendell Primus, explained … House Democrats would pass a series of ‘fixes’ to the Senate bill. The Senate would then pass the House reconciliation bill, sending amendments to President Obama to a bill that — strictly speaking — didn’t exist, because it hadn’t yet emerged from the House. The House would then retroactively pass the Senate bill as is. Democrats say this will all be kosher as long as Mr. Obama signs the Senate bill before he signs the reconciliation bill. ‘There’s a certain skill, there’s a trick,’ Mr. Primus conceded, ‘but I think we’ll get it done.’ So even as Democrats themselves acknowledge that one reason the public hates ObamaCare so much is the corrupt tactics they have used to advance it through Congress, they still plan to try to land this Pelosian triple-handspring-quadruple pole vault to passage.” —The Wall Street Journal

SOURCE

Get set to get rammed!

September 29, 2009

No, I’m not talking ancient naval warfare, or homosexual proclivities either. Although some may believe that what is about to happen in the Senate is in fact akin to the latter for some of the poor souls in various Graybar Hotels.

In broader terms, the big task for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is to get 60 votes in the Senate in order to block a Republican filibuster. But Reid could also implement a legislative option known as reconciliation, which would only require 51 senators.

By that method the gangsters in the Senate can get passed the opposition, and get your butt in their sling. Such shenanigans, akin to Harry Reid posing as a Second Amendment supporter in Nevada are pure dirty politics that are designed to further the political agenda of elitist, not supportive of what you, the American people want, need, or should have foisted upon them. Read about that in it’s entirety HERE.

For my part I am looking forward to “Judgment Day” 2010. They big government “Better than Thou” type’s are in for yet another wake up call. Hopefully followed by¬† a complete Tar & Feathering of the programs that they have forced upon this nation.

Some people just never learn. It’s a fact friends. Hence;

“‘Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because President Clinton failed to pass national health care.’ I’m not sure if this is another example of the left’s wishful-thinking method of analysis or if they’re seriously trying to trick the Blue Dog Democrats into believing it. But I gather liberals consider the 1994 argument an important point because it was on the front page of The New York Times a few weeks ago in place of a story about Van Jones or ACORN. According to a news story by Jackie Calmes: ‘In 1994, Democrats’ dysfunction over fulfilling a new president’s campaign promise contributed to the party’s loss of its 40-year dominance of Congress.’ That’s not the way I remember it. The way I remember it, Republicans swept Congress in 1994 not because Clinton failed to nationalize health care, but because he tried to nationalize health care. HillaryCare failed because most Americans didn’t want it. … But just to check my recollection, I looked up the Times’ own coverage of the 1994 congressional races. Republicans won a landslide election in 1994 based largely on the ‘Contract With America,’ which, according to the Times, promised ‘tax cuts, more military spending and a balanced-budget amendment.’ Far from complaining about Clinton incompetently failing to pass health care, the Times reported that Republicans were ‘unabashedly claiming credit for tying Congress up in knots.’ These claims were immediately followed by … oh, what was that word again? Now I remember … LANDSLIDE!” –columnist Ann Coulter

So? What should a hard left Democrat be doing in these trying times in preparation for what awaits them? Invest of course!



%d bloggers like this: